Hi, Disco, would you please refrain from shouting? My ears are getting fatigued...

But I'm not shouting. However, I guess you would like me to decrease the bold font size? If that's the case, then I'll do it.

Mij wrote:

So Disco Boy lives in Canada ? Fine. With Harper at the wheel, it looks like we're fast becoming USA #2. No need to rejoice here.

Sorry, DB, I don't buy your arguments. If one wants to eliminate greatly mass murders with weapons, you either eliminate weapons, or peoples shooting them. My daughter lives in France. In regard of ratio, they don't have mass murders like in USA. They have a greater control on who can owns a gun and what type. Although, I don't think it's enough regulation.

If you're Canadian, why do you care ? It's only Americans shooting other Americans, right ? And they love it that way. Forget Newtown. That's my last thought. They want to shoot themselves, they don't want to seriously solve the problem (NRA ideas are not in any means a solution), let them have their way. Why not make it a daily TV show ? ("The Big Bang Therapy") And sell more guns ? Hey, why not teach kids how to use it in Kindergarten ? And let them bring it in schools ? To be on par with a possible killer. They could force everyone to have a gun with them 24/7. In every place. Let the climate of paranoia rise to its highest. Beware if you don't look right to me ! Let the shooting begins, Hallelujah ! Isn't it great to be an American ! Salute to the Flag ! Honor to the Founding Fathers !! Hail to the 2nd amendment !!!

Unfortunately, it's clear to me that you're not only blinded by your extreme bias and ignorance of the overwhelming statistical evidence but you haven't read into this very much. There are 300 million guns in the US. That's almost 1 per person. So the very idea of making gun laws stricter there is not even remotely going to make things better. It's very simple...

duchamp wrote:

Disco Boy wrote:

I disagree. I think you would still be able to protect yourself against Government/authority forces or ANYBODY who poses a threat to you or your family, if anarchy developed, regardless of the results.

I have no idea why you're so gung-ho about this particular issue - it's not even my main point.

And singling out a tragedy like the Koresh incident isn't going to prove your point...

See, you always go on about having so much compelling evidence to back up your claim, yet this is the third time you have responded to this same argument with no evidence. Your opinion is not proof.

Wtf are you talking about? If I claim to have proof or compelling evidence, it's because I do. But in this case, I NEVER said there was proof. All I'm doing here is disagreeing with you. In fact, the burden of proof in this case is on YOU. And btw, you haven't proven ANYTHING.

SON. OF. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

I disagree. I think you would still be able to protect yourself against Government/authority forces or ANYBODY who poses a threat to you or your family, if anarchy developed, regardless of the results.

MentalTossFlycoon wrote:

Do what I did: set him on ignore. He just copies and pastes the same shit over and over anyway...

That subtextual political anger of yours is REALLY getting to you. Glad I could help!

But no problems, sweet Disco Boy.I'm enjoying the show ! Americans who shoot Americans !!!And they don't even want to try the tiniest little solution to stop that ?I'm in for a LOOOOOONNNNNNNNGGGG show !Fit for TV. "The American Shooting Gallery" sponsored by the NRA and approved by millions of fearing Americanstoo stupid to see they're manipulated. "Boo-ooh...Beware of dictatorship"

But no problems, sweet Disco Boy.I'm enjoying the show ! Americans who shoot Americans !!!And they don't even want to try the tiniest little solution to stop that ?I'm in for a LOOOOOONNNNNNNNGGGG show !Fit for TV. "The American Shooting Gallery" sponsored by the NRA and approved by millions of fearing Americanstoo stupid to see they're manipulated. "Boo-ooh...Beware of dictatorship"

I'm curious. Aren't you ? Who'll be the last man standing ?

So, sit back, and enjoy with me the Pow-Pow !

They ARE trying the "tiniest little solution to stop that" but it's not going to work for more than obvious reasons.

And please tell me, how are these, "millions of fearing Americans too stupid to see they're manipulated"?

tweedle-dee wrote:

At the point of diminishing returns similiar to those who have been married multiple times, one must ask ones self "maybe its me"...

In the early 60s, almost every adult, and some kids, smoked the cigarette. At that time, if someone would have come and tell the smokers that in 2013 there would be only some 20% still smoking, he would have been laughed at. First, the smokers didn't see the reason why to stop. And since everyone was smoking and enjoying it, anywhere, anytime, there was no reason to stop. At that time, nobody predicted that cigarettes would go down that way.And then, we were advised that cigarette is a major cause of cancer. We were then told about the dangers and that we were jeopardizing our lives if we didn't stop. And the unbelievable turns out to be true. Lots of people quit smoking. A big part of those who still do are from the older generation.

It doesn't matter how high a wall is, and how hard it is to crumble it down. Comes a time when it has to fall down. Things change in life. Now it seems impossible to greatly reduce the number of guns in circulation in the USA. But whose to say what it could be in the next 50 years if something is done NOW. Lots of Americans are beginning to realize the bad all these guns bring. It may be a turning point. When it will come to cause the defeat of a party, I think this will be the beginning of the end.

Cigarette addiction has come to be seen for what it is...a very difficult addiction to overcome, and one that can lead to an early death. The reason why so many people smoked is because of fraudulent advertising that claimed benefits from smoking, like better digestion and subtle coolness. Once a person was hooked, it was too late.

The people that produce cigarettes should have been prosecuted, and perhaps heavy restrictions should have been placed on tobacco, but it did not happen. The taxes went up, and advertising was prohibited, and the tobacco companies paid a large judgement to the states to cover health costs. It's the American way not to put "legitimate businesses" under. There were too many people making a profit, from the farmer to the doctor.

I do not see such a scenario when it comes to guns. There are more people that see guns as being inherently beneficial than there are who see them as being inherently dangerous. For every person that fears a gun, there's another that loves it. People today still smoke cigarettes...young people, mind you, that have grown up hearing all the bad stuff about them...they still pick up the habit! Shit, they all grew up hearing about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, but the warnings did not stop them from trying it. If anything, the warnings enticed them.

Guns will always be seen as a useful tool to someone. You can bet your ass the government sees guns in that light. The way I see it, governments and government forces are corruptible. If they are the only persons holding firepower, they will use that advantage to oppress. As it is now, I think they fear the people a little more than they would like to, which is the way it should be.

I do not see such a scenario when it comes to guns. There are more people that see guns as being inherently beneficial than there are who see them as being inherently dangerous. For every person that fears a gun, there's another that loves it. People today still smoke cigarettes...young people, mind you, that have grown up hearing all the bad stuff about them...they still pick up the habit! Shit, they all grew up hearing about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, but the warnings did not stop them from trying it. If anything, the warnings enticed them.Guns will always be seen as a useful tool to someone. You can bet your ass the government sees guns in that light. The way I see it, governments and government forces are corruptible. If they are the only persons holding firepower, they will use that advantage to oppress. As it is now, I think they fear the people a little more than they would like to, which is the way it should be.

Mind you, it may changes. Let's suppose it's now 30% in favor, and 70% against a restriction gun law. With the new shootings in store for the next months, it could rise the percentage of those who are fed up with guns. Who knows ? If nothing is done, even the tiniest regulation for a gun restriction law, that percentage may rise. It may, one day, be more than 50%. Such a party, like let's say the Republicans, may lose an election if they still support the NRA and its politics. Much more, they could never win an election again if that percentage stays that high and they continue their loving relationship with the NRA (Happy Valentine Day !).

And I don't worry too much about government fearing the common man with a gun. It's such a fantasy to even think they're afraid of us. I think the regular Dems and Reps are more afraid of losing elections and not be in the President's chair. I can't picture Americans unite against their government. 50% will go, the other 50% will stop them. Stop dreaming.

I hate that kind of logic. Its like people who say "Without Thomas Edison we'd still all be reading by candlelight!". No we wouldn't.

Just a history lesson, it IS a fact that the tobacco industry was the first, seems like you over analyze everything, but in this case it was tobacco, your analogy would hold water if a particular grower was sited as the one that made the industry. Just like you say we would have had the light bulb with or without Edison but the light bulb itself changed the world, just like tobacco did with the colonies, savvy?

_________________A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see

Debby, if they were conscious, they'd ban the guns, at least they'd try harder.Why don't you simply enjoy the show ?

Jennifer, if they banned guns, you'd see a FAR higher crime rate than now, since for example (and there's several others), MILLIONS of people would NOT relinquish their firearms without a fight.

It's a similar situation with most other illegal products/activities such as drugs...because it only entices the participants of illegal products/activities to flourish, not to flounder. It's the primary reason why, in most cases, prohibition doesn't work. You might want to try and study history...

Debby, if they were conscious, they'd ban the guns, at least they'd try harder.Why don't you simply enjoy the show ?

Jennifer, if they banned guns, you'd see a FAR higher crime rate than now, since for example (and there's several others), MILLIONS of people would NOT relinquish their firearms without a fight.

It's a similar situation with most other illegal products/activities such as drugs...because it only entices the participants of illegal products/activities to flourish, not to flounder. It's the primary reason why, in most cases, prohibition doesn't work. You might want to try and study history...

Honey Boo Boo, slavery was banned, and I don't see everybody with one stashed away in their basements. This particular argument in favor of guns is weak at best.

History lesson for Isaac Boo Boo -

Quote:

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings...

...By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:

"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."

George Mason expressed a similar fear:

"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . "

Henry then bluntly laid it out:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they'd use the Constitution to free the South's slaves (a process then called "Manumission").

The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):

"[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission," said Henry. "And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?

"This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it."

He added: "This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress."

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.

"I was struck with surprise," Madison said, "when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not."

But the southern fears wouldn't go away.

Patrick Henry even argued that southerner's "property" (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:

"In this situation," Henry said to Madison, "I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone."

So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.

Early reports show a meteor streaking across the Russian sky just as people were getting up to go to work.The army said they shot a missle at it and broke it apart.If you go to rt.com news they have all sorts of videos of the meteor.400 hurt by flying glass from the shock wave.One giant brick zinc plant was hit and windows were knocked out for 200 miles around.Big stuff!

Early reports show a meteor streaking across the Russian sky just as people were getting up to go to work.The army said they shot a missle at it and broke it apart.If you go to rt.com news they have all sorts of videos of the meteor.400 hurt by flying glass from the shock wave.One giant brick zinc plant was hit and windows were knocked out for 200 miles around.Big stuff!

...and then, there was an eerie scraping noise, as a round section of the meteorite began to turn....

_________________You're probably wondering why I'm here(not that it makes a heck of a lot of a difference to ya)

Ironic too. All the troubles because of slavery in the "Home of the Free". How hypocrite too.

Debbie can't accept the idea that things may and will change. It's been like that since dawning of Man. We know where no changing will lead. And I honestly think more and more people will want a severe gun restriction law (hopefully leading to some sort of ban), and I also think that one day that number will rise above 50%. Enough for the Reps and Dems to take notice.

When everybody was smoking cigarettes in the 60s, it was inconceivable that one day cigarettes would be banned almost everywhere. There was no riot in the streets*. Peoples realize that it was a good thing, despite their love of tobacco.

I repeat "THINGS CHANGE". It's not an easy process. It takes time and education. And guys thinking like Debbie will one day be the exception.

*I worked as a musician in bars. I thought there would be protests everywhere when they banned smoking in bars and restaurants. To my surprise, nothing happened. People just go out to smoke. Years of preparation went into that social change. It was possible and it was done because, all things considered, it is a good thing. Same thing may happen with guns.

Early reports show a meteor streaking across the Russian sky just as people were getting up to go to work.The army said they shot a missle at it and broke it apart.If you go to rt.com news they have all sorts of videos of the meteor.400 hurt by flying glass from the shock wave.One giant brick zinc plant was hit and windows were knocked out for 200 miles around.Big stuff!

...and then, there was an eerie scraping noise, as a round section of the meteorite began to turn....

....I reached for my gun,but it was too late the meteor had anticipated my move and shot me with my own gun! Imagine that! A person shot with his own weapon! Why there outta be a law!(Sneaky liberal meteors)

Debby, if they were conscious, they'd ban the guns, at least they'd try harder.Why don't you simply enjoy the show ?

Jennifer, if they banned guns, you'd see a FAR higher crime rate than now, since for example (and there's several others), MILLIONS of people would NOT relinquish their firearms without a fight.

It's a similar situation with most other illegal products/activities such as drugs...because it only entices the participants of illegal products/activities to flourish, not to flounder. It's the primary reason why, in most cases, prohibition doesn't work. You might want to try and study history...

Being called an idiot by a retarded is quite an enjoyable pleasure, like a skunk telling a flower "You stink".And calling History BS says much about the despair of having been painted in a corner and the lack of valuable arguments. Wanting to be in the right is not a reason to deny the truth. Remember those who say that Holocaust is a fiction, that it never happened ?

Nevertheless...despite guys like DB, things change, mentally change, it's part of evolution, it's needed, it's necessary. Those rednecks who still want to live in the 18th or 19th century are not part of the solution. And cigarettes is good example of getting rid in the long run of something bad.

I think USA has no choice. A regulation law on guns is a must. In the meantime, have yourself a beer and a bag of chips and enjoy the shootings.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum